Mr. Meza: Due to the press of time we should begin immediately
with the question and answer period. You know the ground rules; are there any
questions?

Question: Senator Kennedy, I'm Glenn Norman, Pastor of Second
Baptist Church in Corpus Christi. I think I speak for many that do not in any
sense discount or in any sense doubt your loyalty and your love to this
nation, or your position, that's in accord with our position, in regard to
the separation of church and state. But could I bring it down to where we stand
right here tonight, as two men of just nearly equal in age, just
standing facing each other. If this meeting
tonight were being held in the sanctuary of my church -- it's the policy in my city,
that has many very fine Catholics in it, but it's the policy of Catholic leadership
to forbid them to attend a Catholic -- a Protestant service -- If we tonight were in the
sanctuary of my church, just right as we are, would you and could you attend, as you have
here?

Senator Kennedy: Well, yes, I could.
I can attend any -- as I said in my statement -- I
would attend any service in the interest -- that had any connection with my
public office, or, in the case of a private ceremony, weddings, funerals and so
on, of course I would participate and have participated. I think the only
question would be whether I could participate as a participant, a believer in
your faith, and maintain my membership in my church. That, it seems to me, comes
within the private beliefs that a Catholic might have. But as far as whether I
could attend this sort of a function in your church, whether I as Senator or
President could attend a function in your service connected with my position of
office, then I could attend and would attend.

Question: Closely allied to it was the position in regard to
the Chapel of the Chaplains that was dedicated and which I believe you once had
accepted the invitation to attend, and then the press said, I believe, that
Cardinal Dougherty brought pressure and you refused and did not attend.

Senator Kennedy: I will be delighted to explain. That seems to
be a matter of great interest. I was invited in 1947, after my election to the
Congress, by Dr. Poling to attend a -- a dinner to raise funds for an interfaith
chapel in honor of the four chaplains who went down on the Dorchester. This was 14 years
ago. I was delighted to accept, because I thought it was a useful and worthwhile
cause. A few days before I was due to accept, I learned through my
administrative assistant, who had friends in Philadelphia -- two things. First, that I was listed
-- and this is in Dr. Poling's book in which he
describes the incident -- as the spokesman for the Catholic faith at the dinner. Charles Taft, Senator Taft's brother, was to be the spokesman for the Protestant
faith. Senator Lehman was to be the spokesman for the Jewish faith. The second thing I learned was
that the chapel, instead of being located as I thought it was as an interfaith
chapel, was located in the basement of another church. It was not in that sense
an interfaith chapel, and for the 14 years since that chapel was built there has
never been a service of my church because of the physical location. I,
therefore, informed Dr. Poling that while I would be glad to come as a citizen,
in fact, many Catholics did go to the dinner, I did not feel that I had very good
credentials to attend as the spokesman for the Catholic faith at that dinner to
raise funds when the whole Catholic church group in Philadelphia were not
participating and because the chapel has never been blessed or consecrated. Now I want to make it clear that my grounds for not going were private. I had
no credentials to speak for the Catholic faith at a dinner for a chapel which
has never -- in which
no Catholic service has ever been held. So that -- and to this day, unfortunately, no service
has been held at the present time. But I think if I may separate that, if this were a
public matter, I told Dr. Poling I'd be glad to go as an individual; but I could not go as a
spokesman on that occasion.

Question: Senator Kennedy, Canon Rutenbahr of Christ Church,
here in Houston. I have
read this platform and the planks in it with great interest, especially in the
realms of freedom, and I note that in the educational section the right of
education for each person is guaranteed or offered for a guarantee. It also
says that there shall be equal opportunity for employment. In another
section it says there shall be equal rights to housing and recreation. All of
these speak, I think, in a wonderful sense to the freedom which we want to keep
here in America. Yet, on the other hand, there is in another place in the
platform, I these words: "We will repeal the authorization for right-to-work laws." Now, it seems to me that in this aspect here, and I feel that these are
much more important than any religious issue -- here you are abolishing an open
shop; you are taking away the freedom of the individual worker, whether he wants
to work and wants to belong to this union or not. Now, isn't this sort of double talk?
You're
guaranteeing freedom on one hand and yet you're going to take it away on the other?

Senator Kennedy: No, I don't agree with that.

Question: I think there's
a dichotomy here in the platform ... --

Senator Kennedy:
Well that provision has been in the platform since
1948, and I am sure there is a difference of opinion between us on that matter,
and between many Democrats on that matter. But I think that it's a decision
which goes to the economic and political views. I don't think it involves a
constitutional guarantee of freedom. In other words, under the provisions of the
Taft-Hartley law, a State was permitted to prohibit a union shop. But it was not
permitted to guarantee a closed shop. Now, my own judgment is that uniformity in
interstate commerce is valuable, and, therefore, I hold with the view that it's
better to have uniform laws and not a law which is in interstate commerce, and
these are all --
this is not intrastate but interstate commerce -- which permits one condition in
one State and another in another. This is not a new provision. It's been in
for the last three platforms.

Question: Max Dalcke, president of Gulf Coast Bible
College, and pastor of First Church of God here in Houston, and I am a
member, Mr. Meza, of the Houston Association of Ministers. Mr. Kennedy, you very clearly
stated your position tonight in regard to the propagation of the gospel by all
religious groups in other countries. I appreciated that much because we
Protestants are a missionary people. However, the question I have to ask is
this: If you are elected President, will you use your influence to get the Roman
Catholic countries of South America and Spain to stop persecuting Protestant
missionaries and to give equal rights to Protestants to propagate their faith as the United States gives to the
Roman Catholics or any other group?

Senator Kennedy: I would use my influence as President of the
United States to permit, to encourage the development of freedom all over the
world. One of the rights which I consider to be important is the right of free
speech, the right of assembly, the right of free religious practice, and I would
hope that the United States and the President would stand for those rights all
around the globe without regard to geography or religion or political
traditions.

Question: Senator Kennedy, this is E. H. Westmoreland, pastor
of the South Main Baptist Church, here in Houston. I have received today a copy of a
resolution passed by the Baptist Pastors Conference of St. Louis, and they're
going to confront you with this tomorrow night. I would like you to answer to
the Houston crowd before you get to St. Louis. This is the resolution:

With deep sincerity and in Christian grace, we plead with
Senator John F. Kennedy, as the person presently concerned in this matter, to
appeal to Cardinal Cushing, Mr. Kennedy's own hierarchical superior in
Boston, to present to the Vatican Mr. Kennedy's sincere statement relative to
the separation of Church and State in the United States and religious
freedom as represented in the Constitution of the United States, in order that
the Vatican may officially authorize such a belief for all Roman Catholics
in the United States.

Senator Kennedy: May I just say that as I do not accept the
right of any, as I said, ecclesiastical official, to tell me what I shall do in
the sphere of my public responsibility as an elected official, I do not propose
also to ask Cardinal Cushing to ask the Vatican to take some action. I do not
propose to interfere with their free right to do exactly what they want. There
is no doubt in my mind that the viewpoints that I have expressed --
there is no doubt in my mind that the viewpoint that I have expressed tonight
publicly represents the opinion of the overwhelming majority of American
Catholics, and I think that what my view I have no doubt is known to Catholics around
the world. I am just hopeful that by my stating it quite precisely, and I
believe I state it in the tradition of the American Catholics, way back all
the way to Bishop John Carroll, I feel that -- I hope this will clarify it without my having to
take the rather circuitous route. This is the position I take with the American
Catholic Church in the United States with which I am associated.

Question: We appreciate your forthright statement. May I say we
have great admiration for you. But until we know this is the position of your
church, because there will be many Catholics who will be appointed if you are
elected President, we would like to know that they, too, are free to make such
statements as you've been so courageous to make.

Senator Kennedy: Well let me say that anyone that I would appoint to
any office as a Senator or as a President, would, I hope, hold the same view of
the necessity of their living up to not only the letter of the Constitution but the
spirit. If I may say so, I am a Catholic. I've stated my view very clearly. I
don't find any difficulty in stating that view. In my judgment, it is the view
of American Catholics from one end of the country to the other. Because as long
as I can
state it in a way which is, I hope, is satisfactory to you, why do you possibly doubt
that I represent a viewpoint which is hostile to the Catholic
Church in the United States. I believe I'm stating the viewpoint that Catholics
in this country hold toward the happy relationship which exists between Church and
State.

Question: Let me ask you then, sir: Do you state it with the approval of the Vatican?

Senator Kennedy: I don't have to have approval in that sense. I've not submitted
-- I have not submitted my statement before I read it to the Vatican. I
did not submit it to Cardinal Cushing. But my judgment is that Cardinal Cushing,
which is the Cardinal from the diocese of which I am a member, would approve of this
statement, in the same way that he approved of the 1948 statement of the Bishop.
In my judgment, and I am not a student of theology, I am stating what I believe
to be the position of my personal position and also the position of the great
majority of Catholics across the United States. I hope that other countries may
some day enjoy the same happy relationship of a separation between Church and State,
whether they are in Catholic countries or non-Catholic countries. It seems to me
that I am the one that is running for the office of the Presidency and not
Cardinal Cushing and not anyone else.

Westmoreland: We would like very much for the Cardinal to
make the same statement.

Question:
*Senator Kennedy, I am K. O. White, pastor of Houston's
Downtown First Baptist Church and former pastor of Metropolitan Baptist Church
in Washington, D.C. Let me return for a moment to the matter of the Chaplain's
Chapel because there will be some questions raised, I am sure, and we would like
to have just a little further statement from you.* Today I had a telephone
conversation with Dr. Poling and received this telegram from him. I'm sure you
would like to clear this matter up. Let me read briefly from his telegram:

The 'Memorandum on Religion as an Election Issue' prepared by Senator Kennedy's
associates has a section on the Poling incident. This section contains serious
factual errors. I believe the Senator will wish to correct the errors or that he
would will
wish to withdraw that section. The original draft of the program on the
interfaith dinner held in the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel, on December 15, 1947,
identified Mr. Kennedy, then Congressman from Massachusetts, as Honorable John F.
Kennedy, Congressman from Massachusetts. Mr. Kennedy was never invited as an
official representative of a religious organization nor indeed as the spokesman
for the Catholic faith. No speaker on that occasion, Catholic, Jew, or
Protestant, was identified by his faith. When two days before the dinner occasion
Mr. Kennedy cancelled his engagement, he expressed his regret and grief and stated that since
his Eminence, the Cardinal, requested him not to come, he as a loyal son of the
church had no other alternative. Therefore, it was necessary to destroy this
first program and to reprint it.

Senator Kennedy: Now I will state again that the words I used are a
quotation from the -- from the Reverend Poling's book, "Spokesman for the Catholic Faith," a
book which was produced about a year ago which first discussed this incident. Secondly, my memory of the incident is quite clear.
In fact, it's as good as Rev.
Poling's because when the matter was first discussed Reverend Poling stated that
the incident took place in 1950, and it's only in the last two months that it
has come forward that the incident took
place in 1947. Thirdly, I never discussed the matter with Cardinal Dougherty in my life.
I've never spoken to the Cardinal. I
first learned of it through Mr. Reardon, who was my administrative assistant,
who knew a
Mr. Doyle who worked for the National Catholic Welfare Conference, who stated that there was a good deal
of concern among many of the church people in Philadelphia, because of the
location of the chapel and because no service would ever be held in it because
it was located in the basement of another church. It was an entirely different
situation than the one that I had confronted when I first happily accepted it.
Now there
were three speakers. Kennedy was one of them; Taft was the second; Senator
Lehman was the third. I don't think I've misstated that one was supposed to speak
for the Catholic faith, as a spokesman in Mr. Poling's words, one for the Protestant
faith, and one and one for the Jewish faith. Now all I can I can say to you,
sir, is this chapel -- I was glad
to accept the invitation. I did not clear the invitation with anyone. It was
only when I was informed that I was speaking, and I was invited obviously as a
serviceman because I came from a prominent Catholic family, that I was informed
that I was there really in a sense without any credentials. The chapel, as I
have said,
has never had a Catholic service. It is not an interfaith chapel. And therefore, for
me to participate as a spokesman in that sense for the Catholic faith I think
would have given an erroneous impression. Now, I've been there 14 years. This took
place in 1947. I had been in politics probably two months and was relatively
inexperienced. I should have inquired before getting into the incident. Is this
the best that can be done after 14 years? Is this the only incident that can be
shown? And this was a private dinner. This was not a public dinner.
This was a private dinner. This did not involve my
responsibilities as a public official. My judgment was bad only in accepting it
without having all the facts, which I wouldn't have done at a later date. But I
do want to say that I've been there for 14 years. I have voted on hundreds of
matters, probably thousands of matters, which involve all kinds of public
questions, some of which border on the relationship between Church and State.
And quite obviously that record must be reasonably good or we wouldn't keep hearing
about the Poling incident. In addition, I don't mean to be disrespectful to
the Reverend Poling. I have high regard
for his son. I have high regard for Dr. Poling. I don't like to be in a debate
with him about it. But I must say, even
looking back, I think it was imprudent of me to accept it without more
information, but I don't really feel that it demonstrates unfitness
to hold public office.

Question: The reason for our concern is the fact that your
church has stated that it has the privilege and the right and the responsibility to
direct its members in various areas of life, including the political realm. We
believe that history and observation indicate that it has done so. And we raise the
question because we would like to know, if you are elected President and your
church elects to use that privilege and obligation, what your response will be
under those circumstances.

Senator Kennedy: If my church attempted to influence me in a way
which was improper or which affected adversely my responsibilities as a public
servant, sworn to uphold the Constitution, then I would reply to them that this
was an improper action on their part, that it was one to which I could not
subscribe, that I was opposed to it, and that it would be an unfortunate breach
of --
an interference, with the American political system. I'm confident that there would be no such interference. We've had two
Chief Justices of the Supreme Court who were Catholics. We've had three Prime
Ministers of Canada in this century. I've already mentioned Mr. De Gaulle and
Mr. Adenauer. My judgment is that an American who is a Catholic, who
is as sensitive as a Catholic must be who seeks this high office,
has exposed to the pressures which whirl
around us, that he will be extremely diligent in his protection of the
constitutional separation.

White: We would be most happy to have such a statement from
the Vatican.

Mr. Meza. Because of the brief -- briefness of the time, let's cut out
the applause.

Question: Senator Kenney: B. E. Howard, minister of the Church of Christ. First
of all I should like to quote some authoritative quotations from Catholic
sources and then propose a question. "So that a false statement knowingly made
to one who has not a right to the truth will not be a lie" (Catholic
Encyclopedia, volume 10, page 696). Quoting: "However, we are also under an obligation to
keep secrets faithfully and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to
say what is false or tell a lie" (Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 10, page 195). "When mental reservation is permissible, it is lawful to corroborate one's
utterances by an oath if there be an adequate cause" (Article on perjury,
Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11, page 696). "The truth we proclaim under oath is
relative and not absolute" (Explanation of Catholic Morals," page 130). Just recently from the Vatican in Rome this news release was given from the
official Vatican newspaper -- and I am quoting that of May 19, 1960, Tuesday --
stated that the Roman Catholic hierarchy had the right and duty to intervene in
the political field to guide its flock. The newspaper rejected what is
termed (quoting) "the absurd split of conscience between the believer and the citizen."
However, Observatore Romano made it clear that its stern pronouncement was valid
for Roman Catholic laymen everywhere. It deplored the great confusion of ideas
that is spreading especially between Catholic doctrine and social and political
activities and between the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the lay faithful in the
civil field. Pope John XXIII recently gave this statement according to the St. Louis
Review, dated December 12th, 1958 (quoting): "Catholics may unite their strength toward the
common aid and the Catholic hierarchy have the right and duty of guiding them" --

From the floor:
(objection...due to time)

Question: Question, sir: Do you subscribe to the doctrine
of mental reservation which I have quoted from the Catholic authorities? Do you
submit to the authority of the present Pope which I have quoted from in these
quotations?

Senator Kennedy:
Well, let me say in the first place I've not read
the Catholic Encyclopedia and I don't know all the quotation which you're giving me.
I don't agree with the statement. I find no difficulty in saying so. But I do
think probably I could get a -- make a better comment if I had the entire quotation
before me. But in any case I have not read it before. If the quotation is meant to
imply that when you take an oath you don't mean it or that it's proper for you to
make oaths and then break them, that it is proper for you to lie, if that is what
this states, and I don't know whether that is what it states unless I read it
all in context, then, of course, I would not agree with it. Secondly, on the question of the
Observatore Romano article, once again I
don't have that in full. I read the statement of last December which was
directed to a situation in Sicily where some of the Catholics were active in the
Communist Party. But I'm not familiar with the one of May 1960 that you
mentioned. In any case the Observatore Romano has no standing, as far as binding
me. Thirdly, this quotation of Pope John of 1958, I didn't catch all of that, and
if you'll read that again I will tell you whether that -- I feel whether I support that or not.

Question: Pope John XXIII only recently stated according to the
St. Louis Review, date of December 12th, 1958 (quoting), "Catholics must unite their
strength toward the common aid and the Catholic hierarchy has the right and duty
of guiding them." Do you subscribe to that?

Senator Kennedy: Well, now, what I -- I couldn't describe -- guiding them in what
area? If you're talking about in the area of faith and morals, in the
constructions of the church, I would think any Baptist minister or
Congregational minister has the right and duty to try to guide his flock. If
you mean that by that statement that the Pope or anyone else could bind me in the
fulfillment, by a statement, in the fulfillment of my public duties, I say no.
If that statement is intended to mean, and it's very difficult to comment on a
sentence taken out of an article which I have not read, but if that is intended
to imply that the hierarchy has some obligation or has an obligation to attempt
to guide the members of the Catholic Church, then that may be proper. But it all
depends on the previous language of what you mean by "guide." If you mean direct
or instruct on matters dealing with the organization of the faith, the details
of the faith, then, of course, they have that obligation. If you mean that
by that -- under that
he could guide me or anyone could guide or direct me in fulfilling my public
duty, then I do not agree.

Comment: Thank you, sir. Then you do not agree with the Pope in
that statement?

Senator Kennedy: You see, that is why I was -- wanted to be
careful, because that statement, it seems to me, is taken out of context
that you just
made to me. I could not tell you what the Pope meant unless I had the entire
article. I would be glad to state to you that no one can direct me in the
fulfillment of my duties as a public official under the United States Constitution. That
I am directed to do to the people of the United States, sworn to do, to an
oath to God. Now that is my flat statement. I would not want to go into details on a
sentence that you read to me which I may not understand completely.

Comment: I understand you didn't explain anything.

Mr. Meza: Gentlemen we have time -- we have time for one more question, if it
can be handled briefly.

Question: Senator Kennedy, I'm Robert McLaren, from Westminster Presbyterian
Church, here in Houston. You have been quite clear, and I think laudably so, on this matter
of the separation of Church and State, and you have answered very graciously the
many questions that have come
up around it. There is one question, however, which seems to me quite relevant.
And this relates to your statement that if you found by some remote possibility a
real conflict between your oath of office as President, that you would resign that
office if it were in real conflict with your church.

Senator Kennedy: No, I said with my conscience.

Question: With your conscience. In the syllabus of errors of Pope Leo
IX, which the
Catholic Encyclopedia states is still binding, although it's from a different
century, is still binding upon all Catholics, there are three very specific things which
are denounced, including the separation of State and Church, the freedom of
religions other than Catholic to propagate themselves, and the freedom of
conscience. Do you still feel, these being binding upon you, that you hold your
oath of office above your allegiance to the Pope on these issues?

Senator Kennedy: Well, let's go through the issues because I
don't think there's a conflict on these three issues. The first issue, as I
understand it, was on the relationship between the Catholics and the state and
other faiths. Was that the --

McLaren: No, the separation of Church and State, he explicitly
considers in error.

Senator Kennedy: I support that, and in my judgment the American
Bishops statement of 1948 clearly supported it. That, in my judgment, is the view
held by Catholics in this country. They support the constitutional separation of
Church and State and they are not in error in that regard.

McLaren: The second was the right of religions other than Roman Catholic to propagate themselves.

Senator Kennedy: I think that they should be permitted to propagate themselves, any
faith, without any limitation by the power of the State, or encouragement by the
power of the State. What's the third one?

McLaren: The third was the freedom of conscience in matters of
religion, and this also in point 46, I believe it is, extends to the freedom of
the mind
in the realms of science. This is part --

Senator Kennedy: Yes, well, I believe in freedom of conscience. Let
me just -- I guess our time is coming to an end, but I believe in it. Let me say, finally, that I am
delighted to come here today. I don't want anyone to think because they
interrogate me on this very important question, that I regard that as unfair
questions or unreasonable or somebody who is concerned about the matter is
prejudiced or bigoted. I think this fight for religious freedom is basic in the
establishment of the American system, and therefore any candidate for the
office, I think, should submit himself to the questions of any reasonable man.

My only objection would be -- my only limit to that would be
that if
somebody said regardless of Senator Kennedy's position, regardless of how much
evidence he's given that what he says he means, I still wouldn't vote for him
because he is a member of that church. I would consider that unreasonable. What I
consider to be reasonable, and an exercise of free will and free choice, is
to ask the candidate to state his views as broadly as possible, investigate his
record to see what whether he states he believes and then to make an independent
rational judgment, as to whether he could be entrusted with this highly
important position. So I want you to know that I'm grateful to you for inviting me
tonight. I'm sure that I have made no converts to my church. But I do
hope -- I do hope that at least my view, which I believe to be the view of my fellow
Catholics, who hold office, I hope that it may be of some value in at least assisting
you to make a careful judgment. Thank you.